• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe

TamleeB said:
I also read that he was a lower level lawyer. Which makes me pause and wonder why a lower level lawyer would do such a thing? Were there others involved? My guess is that this will be part of the Durham criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

He was a low level employee. Doubt that anybody in the high levels even personally knew who he was. He was accused of altering the meaning of an email. Why? Not sure. Could've been from personal bias. Could've been from over an over eagerness to please a superior and enhance his chance for advancement. Not sure what the reason was. But whatever the reason it doesn't really matter. It's an egregious violation of FBI/DOJ code and it's standards of professional conduct that all it's employees are subject to regardless at what level they are in the organization. This misconduct was discovered and the employee was subsequently and rightly fired. So yes this is a serious incident for the FBI. But probably not so much in the greater scheme of things as it appears that the understanding of the IG is that this did nothing to alter the legal and factual basis for the surveillance application and the propriety of it.
 
Atomic Kid said:
He was a low level employee. Doubt that anybody in the high levels even personally knew who he was. He was accused of altering the meaning of an email. Why? Not sure. Could've been from personal bias. Could've been from over an over eagerness to please a superior and enhance his chance for advancement. Not sure what the reason was. But whatever the reason it doesn't really matter. It's an egregious violation of FBI/DOJ code and it's standards of professional conduct that all it's employees are subject to regardless at what level they are in the organization. This misconduct was discovered and the employee was subsequently and rightly fired. So yes this is a serious incident for the FBI. But probably not so much in the greater scheme of things as it appears that the understanding of the IG is that this did nothing to alter the legal and factual basis for the surveillance application and the propriety of it.
Click to expand...

It absolutely matters. These people took an oath to uphold The Constitution. This guy failed to do so and violated his oath. This is a big ****ing deal.

One piece of false information in a warrant application nullifies all the information in the application. This is the sort of thing that allow murderers to go free.
 
Atomic Kid said:
He was a low level employee. Doubt that anybody in the high levels even personally knew who he was. He was accused of altering the meaning of an email. Why? Not sure. Could've been from personal bias. Could've been from over an over eagerness to please a superior and enhance his chance for advancement. Not sure what the reason was. But whatever the reason it doesn't really matter. It's an egregious violation of FBI/DOJ code and it's standards of professional conduct that all it's employees are subject to regardless at what level they are in the organization. This misconduct was discovered and the employee was subsequently and rightly fired. So yes this is a serious incident for the FBI. But probably not so much in the greater scheme of things as it appears that the understanding of the IG is that this did nothing to alter the legal and factual basis for the surveillance application and the propriety of it.
Click to expand...

You have no idea who this person is and it says right in the CNN article that the changes were substantial enough to change the meaning of the document that was altered.

The article also said this person doesn't work for the FBI anymore. So it was an Ex-FBI attorney who worked closely enough on the Russia investigation to substantially alter documents to the point of changing their meaning.

Hmm.....Im thinking Lisa Page or maybe even James Baker.
 
apdst said:
It absolutely matters. These people took an oath to uphold The Constitution. This guy failed to do so and violated his oath. This is a big ****ing deal.

One piece of false information in a warrant application nullifies all the information in the application. This is the sort of thing that allow murderers to go free.
Click to expand...

He's just trying to convince himself that this isn't a big deal. He damn sure isn't convincing anyone else.

What's the first stage of mourning again ? It's denial, right ?
Everyone who fell for the fake Russian collusion hoax eill have to got through these stages until they eventually realize they've had the wool pulled over their eyes by their own party and the MSM
 
TamleeB said:
The Office of Inspector General is not a law enforcement organization (e.g., we do not have power of arrest). However, any unlawful or criminal conduct discovered during the course of an investigation will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement entity. At this point the information is in the hands of Durham, who has the power to to subpoena for witness testimony and documents and hand down indictments to a Grand Jury. We will have to wait and see where this goes.
Click to expand...

Cool story! Not sure why you quoted me and told everyone that you work for the IG since I never said they were a law enforcement organization.

Share your super inside information with your fellow Trump Fans. They're about ready to die with all of the waiting.
 
tres borrachos said:
Who on Earth is peter stoyzk? Sounds Russian. A friend?
Click to expand...

red herring
nit pick fallacy.

you see folks they can't be honest quote people properly and address the actual argument.
that is how dishonest these people have become.

unfortuantly for them facts don't care about their feelings.
 
ludin said:
red herring
nit pick fallacy.

you see folks they can't be honest quote people properly and address the actual argument.
that is how dishonest these people have become.

unfortuantly for them facts don't care about their feelings.
Click to expand...

peter stoyzk is a red herring?
 
"After CNN first reported on the investigation, the Washington Post reported that the inspector general concluded the alteration did not change the validity of the surveillance application."

Too funny.
 
Airyaman said:
It was used as part of the evidence. It was not the sole evidence. That is something that seems to confound Trump followers. When you seek a warrant for anything you have to provide evidence. The paperwork for the FISA warrants were many more pages than the section of the Steel Dossier which might have been a few sentences at best. So what do you supposed was in the filler pages, fluff and poetry?



I said Papa D. was the coffee boy. I don't think Page was even the infrequent water boy. Page was more of a nobody to the campaign than Papa D.




The FBI is not part of the administration.
Click to expand...

If you are going to quote, dont be misleading

Exactice said:
Who and Runs the FISA tool? - US Government? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia (US Government used the FISA to monitor Carter page a Trump Foreign policy advisor for the campaign PRIOR to Trumps win)

Who did they use the FISA on? - Carter Page? Who was Carter Page Carter Page - Wikipedia - Trump announced Page as a foreign policy adviser in his campaign on March 21, 2016.[30] On September 23, 2016,

When did they Surveillance Carter Page - October 2016 to June 2017 , Why? In reports the Dossier named Carter Page on multiple occasions. So the connections through the dossier allowed for supposed approved surveillance.

"Because" they have been doing it to him before he was POTUS, was he NOT already being surveillanced (Trump) prior to his election in 2016. Yes or No? The Dossier was factually used as part, whole or partial in the FISA records. This means that Trump was already a none named target or a incidental target. Then when he became POTUS he became focal point surrounding the Mueller investigations.


3 of the 4 are NOT specualtions. 1 is my well thought out opinion, none of it is politically motivated as I am applying facts NOT politics.

You on the other hand applied an UNFOUNDED Speculation that we should wait because the "FBI" agent may have altered it for Trump........ then your second post was

Indicating your "Politically motivated" post........ with zero factual basis.
Click to expand...


I said it straight, Part, whole or partially. I did not stutter or fabricate or lie or mislead... I never said it was sole. BUT...... To compile on that, I have read most of the 400+ pages of the FISA Application and Renewals. Have you noticed something.

The Dossier is called "Source #1"..... Oddly if you read it... there is NO named "Source #2" , Source #3, Source #4 meaning there is NO validated un-redacted additional names sources. Now here is the thing to protect the source you dont name it... But if there was more they COULD edify there was Source #2 but there is NO additional version of it.... PERIOD. so if "Source #1" being the steel dossier..... and more so.... if in Part why is it the FIRST named source...... yeah... likely it was the only or used in a majority.... PROVE other wise. And prove in all the Apps and renewals there WAS ADDITIONAL SOURCES.

dont belive me

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

please quote above.... where it says source #2

If you dont want to read

Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application - Lawfare

Here is a searchable PDF version. Type in "Source #1" (13 times it comes up)

Type in "Source #2" how many does it show...


PAPA D? Sorry not quite sure he is even relevant as Pada D was NOT under a FISA surveilance program. THAT IS completely irrelevant.


Finally. the FBI DOES NOT RUN the FISA Program. IT IS Irrelevant again. I provided you the link I will do it again.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

1) President through AG can do it without a court order
2) With a court order - "Alternatively, the government may seek a court order "
3) FISA Court - This was used in error it seems (The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies (primarily the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. . Carter page was not a Foreign Intelligence Agent inside the US he was a US CITIZEN.

So explain to me how the FBI is running the FISA Program? It is an approval through government Channels



I am limited in my knowledge and I do my best to read as much as I can.... But your speculations and BIAS is UNBELIEVABLY ridiculous.
 
Whoops double post please delete. Thanks!
 
OscarLevant said:
WaPo



And that is the more Salient point
Click to expand...




To all that keeps using this same point.... Might I make a correction here...

1) Is it FACT. that IG Horowitz has found these "Changes/Errors" and is pending a prosecution. IS THIS FACT?


Ok

Now the big thing

"according to the sources. It did not change Horowitz's finding that the FISA application had a legal basis, The Washington Post first reported."



"acording to the source" So this is THEIR interpretation. But that is NOT IG Horowitz's statement yet, the DOJ statement or Durham's Statement. thats the reporters statement of the FINDINGS of the relevant facts.

The source saying that it did not change does not edify the fact that things were changed and it could have influenced the FISA App. We do NOT have an official statement yet. JUST the sources opinion.


But it we do again have the facts that a FBI lawyer is in trouble for altering the app.
 
Atomic Kid said:
He was a low level employee. Doubt that anybody in the high levels even personally knew who he was. He was accused of altering the meaning of an email. Why? Not sure. Could've been from personal bias. Could've been from over an over eagerness to please a superior and enhance his chance for advancement. Not sure what the reason was. But whatever the reason it doesn't really matter. It's an egregious violation of FBI/DOJ code and it's standards of professional conduct that all it's employees are subject to regardless at what level they are in the organization. This misconduct was discovered and the employee was subsequently and rightly fired. So yes this is a serious incident for the FBI. But probably not so much in the greater scheme of things as it appears that the understanding of the IG is that this did nothing to alter the legal and factual basis for the surveillance application and the propriety of it.
Click to expand...

The IG has made a statement that this did nothing to alter the legal and factual basis for the surveillance? So, then I would assume this is not going to part of the Durham criminal investigation.
 
trixare4kids said:
Goodman, an anti-Trump, could be correct but in the end, what he said above is hearsay.
Click to expand...
I suspect whoever leaked this information is trying to shape the narrative by misrepresenting the facts. And that might be the reason they leaked this to get out in front of the story.
 
tres borrachos said:
Cool story! Not sure why you quoted me and told everyone that you work for the IG since I never said they were a law enforcement organization.

Share your super inside information with your fellow Trump Fans. They're about ready to die with all of the waiting.
Click to expand...


I never mentioned any "inside information". My post was factual. You appear to be a little bit on edge today. Any particular reason? Come on, its Friday and the end of the workweek. Lighten up :lol:
 
Fenton said:
You have no idea who this person is and it says right in the CNN article that the changes were substantial enough to change the meaning of the document that was altered.

The article also said this person doesn't work for the FBI anymore. So it was an Ex-FBI attorney who worked closely enough on the Russia investigation to substantially alter documents to the point of changing their meaning.

Hmm.....Im thinking Lisa Page or maybe even James Baker.
Click to expand...
Lisa Page altered the 302s for Flynn She says she edited them in a couple of text. So I would not put it past her to alter information for a FISA warrant.
 
Airyaman said:
giphy.gif


If it's more than one page and doesn't have pop-ups you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Democrats laughing.



He who laughs last laughs the hardest. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
He wasnt looking. His job was to nail Trump not worry about corruption at the FBI.
Click to expand...

Or, he ignored it, because his job was to nail Trump.
 
Exactice said:
If you are going to quote, dont be misleading




I said it straight, Part, whole or partially. I did not stutter or fabricate or lie or mislead... I never said it was sole. BUT...... To compile on that, I have read most of the 400+ pages of the FISA Application and Renewals. Have you noticed something.

The Dossier is called "Source #1"..... Oddly if you read it... there is NO named "Source #2" , Source #3, Source #4 meaning there is NO validated un-redacted additional names sources. Now here is the thing to protect the source you dont name it... But if there was more they COULD edify there was Source #2 but there is NO additional version of it.... PERIOD. so if "Source #1" being the steel dossier..... and more so.... if in Part why is it the FIRST named source...... yeah... likely it was the only or used in a majority.... PROVE other wise. And prove in all the Apps and renewals there WAS ADDITIONAL SOURCES.

dont belive me

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

please quote above.... where it says source #2

If you dont want to read

Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application - Lawfare

Here is a searchable PDF version. Type in "Source #1" (13 times it comes up)

Type in "Source #2" how many does it show...


PAPA D? Sorry not quite sure he is even relevant as Pada D was NOT under a FISA surveilance program. THAT IS completely irrelevant.


Finally. the FBI DOES NOT RUN the FISA Program. IT IS Irrelevant again. I provided you the link I will do it again.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

1) President through AG can do it without a court order
2) With a court order - "Alternatively, the government may seek a court order "
3) FISA Court - This was used in error it seems (The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies (primarily the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. . Carter page was not a Foreign Intelligence Agent inside the US he was a US CITIZEN.

So explain to me how the FBI is running the FISA Program? It is an approval through government Channels



I am limited in my knowledge and I do my best to read as much as I can.... But your speculations and BIAS is UNBELIEVABLY ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Do you have an unredacted copy of the FISA warrant?

The reason you can see "source #1" is because by the time it was released, the Steele dossier was already in the public domain, so that information did not need to be redacted. That is the only reason you can even read "source #1". Much of the balance of the FISA warrant is blacked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom